Banned Worldwide: Princess Diana Documentary ‘Unlawful Killing

Rate this post

My dear Christian friend in the UK sent me this film to watch, and she commented on the Royal Family, “They are a horrible mean family Kelleigh. So cold and soul-less. The film was very good. I have also read that Diana was groomed to be a sacrifice from a child, even her name was no coincidence. She was no angel, but she was more human. A human sacrifice. They are above the law, but not Gods law.”
I hope you’ll watch the film and comment on it.
Unlawful Killing, the 2011 Keith Allen film that the British Crown establishment has suppressed worldwide for more than two years, surfaced and was screened at the Sydney Underground Film Festival on 7-8 September. The British documentary on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in a car crash in Paris in the summer of 1997, and on the 2007-2008 inquest into it, leaves any viewer with indelible questions about the role of the British Crown: unmistakeably involved in shaping the inquest, what was its role in the killing itself?
The Crown’s suppression of Unlawful Killing has been so complete, that its two Sydney screenings were the first anywhere since it premièred at the Cannes Film Festival and a festival in Galway, Ireland, both in 2011. Not only the film itself has been suppressed, but also any public reporting of its actual content. Instead, where the international media has deigned or been forced to mention it at all, they have uniformly denounced the documentary as “grizzly” and “salacious”, usually citing a single, 3-second grainy black and white image of Diana in the back seat of her car after the crash, while excluding any coverage of the entire rest of the 78-minute film.
The “rest of the film” leads inexorably to chilling, still unanswered questions about a British Royal Family hand in orchestrating Diana’s murder. Its title, “Unlawful Killing”, refers to a type of verdict rendered under English law when a death is determined to have resulted from murder or manslaughter, but the perpetrators are unknown. Media coverage has left most people unaware that “unlawful killing” was the official verdict of the inquest concluded at the Royal Courts of Justice in 2008—the longest such hearing in British history.

Unlawful Killing is a 2011 British documentary film, directed by Keith Allen, about the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed on 31 August 1997. It was financed by Mohamed Al-Fayed and Associated-Rediffusion and shown in Cannes while the 2011 Cannes Film Festival was in progress.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Banned Worldwide: Princess Diana Documentary ‘Unlawful Killing

  1. I’ve known there was something horribly wrong with her death,but my concern was the wasted time after the crash and the stark lack of medical care. In the US she’d likely still be alive,because of our First Responders’ skills,the Ambulances’ capabilities and the Hospitals’ advanced abilities. I know we all carp about things we had problems with during Hospital stays,but compared with the “treatment” given Princess Dianna after the crash,I’m sure we could have saved her. The Medical Facilities over there CAN’T be THAT incompetent-it had to have been an orchestrated effort to LET her die. What a horrible waste of a good life.

    • I agree Truck, it always has appeared very fishy. I think the Windsors are a very odd, eccentric bunch and that is putting it kindly. It does seem however, that Diane’s influence on her sons still remains to this day in them. Thank God for that because Charles is bat sh*t crazy.

      • You make me laugh…yeah, Charles likes sucking his wife’s toes according to recordings of their conversations prior to marriage…

        • Truly?? I am sorry but I look at Camilla’s face and then have to wonder how much more gruesome her feet must be.😝 I am stunned into waves of nausea Kelleigh!! LOL!! And the image won’t leave my mind. Perhaps mind bleach??

          • AHAHAHAHAHA…great comments…yeah, pretty gruesome is right…oh dear me…I could never ever go after someone’s toes…eeewwww.

          • Diana had to be murdered because she was living with a Muslim on a yacht with the heirs to the throne with her. No Muslim King for Britain. Little car that caused crash back in England so French can not find it.

            • Please, the line of kingship is in the family, not outside of it, Dody would never have become king….weak argument

              • By “no Muslim king for Britain,” I think mascmen7 wasn’t referring to Dodi Fayed. He meant an eventual King William, Diana’s first born, although I can’t see why his mother being married to a Muslim would make William a Muslim.

                • Ahhh, well, I see. But that still wouldn’t affect the Kingship line because Diana was now just the mother of the King to be, but realistically an outsider. I don’t think the family liked her for not putting up with Charles and Camilla. As she stated, there were 3 in her marriage. Can’t blame her for leaving the turkey.

            • I agree with you. Here is a quote from my original response; “The Lord God almighty could not have that influence (meaning Arabic) that close to the English throne.” Those of us who believe this are few and far between. Look at what We The People have gotten ourselves into by electing a muslim to lead us!
              I wonder, for those who disagree with us, if they have ever asked themselves this question: “Why are there still European countries that still have kings/queens as their head of state?” Granted most of these positions are figureheads and have no real power, but they are still there. Isn’t this the 21st century and haven’t the days of kings/queens long gone. Obviously not. To everything there is a season and a reason! May the Lord come quickly!

              • But MA in MO, your original reasoning is off base, in that different races shouldn’t blend. As for the Lord not wanting an Arab next to the throne, you forget that God gives us free will. Besides that, it doesn’t matter the race when people are believers in the Lord.

                • This is one of those issues we will have to agree-to-disagree on. However, I will ask you some questions:
                  Who are the biggest promoters of miscengenation?
                  Are they themselves practicing what they preach?
                  If lineage is not important, then why is it explained in detail in both the Old and New Testaments?
                  Why is kind-after-kind emphasized in Gensis?
                  Is miscengenation practiced (without man’s help) in the animal kingdom?
                  Yes, you are correct in saying that in our glorified bodies there will be neither Jew nor Greek (it will be interesting to know for sure just who ‘Jew or Greek’ is in that passage, that is for another discussion). But we are not in our glorified bodies yet. We are still living here on earth, in a fallen world, with all of the sin that humanity can and does impose on humanity.

                  • Yes lineage is in the Bible to show that Jesus descended from King David, and was not Rahab in that lineage, and not of the same race, and was not Moses married to Zipporah? You are sitting in judgment of people and your questions are moot. Where there is love, whether it be between black and white, or Jew and Christian, there is no judgment from God whatsoever. You are the one judging and incorrectly. Who is pushing it? Who cares…take a look at some of the rightwing leaders…even Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America is married to a black woman, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman.

        • Didn’t Charles also say to Camilla, in a wiretapped phone conversation, that he wished he was a tampon inside her? Yuck!

  2. The Royal family does not have a choice but to live in a fishbowl. If you had to live your life in a fishbowl, you would probably be cold and distant to! As my boss said one time, “M——–, you do not know how lonely it is at the top.” Unlike Hollyweird actors and actress’ who have a choice as to whether they choose to live in the lights of tinseltown, the Royal family does not have that choice. I am one of the very few people in the world that did not like Princess Di. To me she was a spoiled rotten brat, who married Charles for all the wrong reasons — money, power, glitter, glamour — and then decided she could not coup. Give me a break! She grew up in England, she knew exactly what she was getting herself into. Di’s only redeeming grace is that her two sons seem to be wonderfully well-adjusted in spite of their mother. I can’t help but to add that Princess Kate is everything Princess Di was not!
    I am probably also one of the very few people in the world who you will hear this from, but here it goes. Princess Di’s death was the hand of God. She was dating and planning to marry an Egyptian. The Lord God almighty could not have that influence that close to the English throne. The world may think that miscengenation is normal and see nothing wrong with it, but my Bible tells me a very different story. Just like the act of sodomy is wrong. Just because people choose to do it does not make it right. All of this will be made perfectly clear when Jesus returns, which is a lot closer than most people think. May he come quickly!

    • Princess Di lived in that very environment,but SHE didn’t let it spoil her love of people. She was involved in helping people all over the world,and the people loved her. Quite the opposite of the rest of that dysfunctional “family”. Royalty becomes so much the worse when they expect the people to TREAT them as “Royalty”,for then they lose sight of how their every act alters the lives of those they lead.

    • Shan’t matter much longer – once the camel-washers turn the UK into the United Kingdomistan, and the Windsors flee to Canada for their lives.
      It’s only a matter of time now.

  3. Let’s take this one point at a time. Are you a UK citizen who knows what you’re stating for a fact? that Diana was a rotten spoiled brat who knew exactly what she was getting into? Excuse me, but the outpouring at her funeral belies that very statement. apparently the people of England saw much more than you have stated in Diana.
    Secondly, there is no documented fact that she would have married Dody, but what if she had? There would certainly be nothing wrong with it if they were in love. Was she a Christian? Who knows…and what was between them, who knows. Certainly neither of us.
    Thirdly, you do not believe it’s okay for races to mix in marriage?I have plenty of friends who are married and have been for decades and they aren’t of the same “race” so to speak, Jews and Christians marry, Blacks and Whites marry, Arabs and other races marry. And most of them do just fine. I don’t know what Bible you’re reading, but you better go back and check that out. Many believe Moses wife Zipporah was a black woman, and Rahab was a non-believer of another race who came into the line of Jesus…So, your argument doesn’t hold water.
    I’m sorry you couldn’t have just read this for the information rather than damning the woman that died, and uplifting the family who treated her so poorly. Of course we all are entitled to our opinions.

    • Miriam a wife of Moses? Miriam was his sister. And Hagar was a concubine of Abraham who gave birth to Ishmael. Jesus did not descend from Ishmael but Isaac. I am sorry, but if you trying to argue against someone else’s opinion, you should not mix these simple facts up.

      • Sorry I wrote the wrong names, I always forget Zipporah and get sister Miriam messed up in there, and it’s Rahab who saved the Jews, I know well who Hagar was and that she brought forth Ishmael because she didn’t trust in the Lord, And therein started the trouble. Nevertheless, you must be careful because you are bordering on racism, and it may be well to discuss your beliefs on a blog and some forums, but it still could get you targeted as a racist. And truly, that’s what it sounds like…I have too much respect for a variety of races, so I will agree to heartily disagree with your standpoint…sounds like you’re an old southern who thinks we should still have slaves, and I don’t mean that derogatorily. There are many who still think that. I’m certainly not one of them. There are many of your posts I agree with, but NOT this one

  4. This documentary premièred at the Cannes Film Festival in 2011, and yet I’d never heard of it, which means the British royal family’s censorship reaches across the Atlantic to include the United States. Meanwhile, not a peep from U.S. media.
    Thank you for this, Kelleigh. I’ll watch the documentary when I find 1+ hours to spare. 🙂

  5. I remember clearly Dodi’s father had the gut feeling from day one that something was amiss. Was it just an accident, or was there something snarky? We will probably never know the complete truth, but I did find Diana as a caring, loving person that was working hard to uncover hidden bombs and seeing that children received help.
    Would I have led the life she did? Not sure, I didn’t walk in her shoes and didn’t have a husband that was having an affair with Camilla behind my back. She did what she had to do and divorced.
    I can’t toss out the first stone when my life and most others are not pristine.
    I prefer to remember a woman that cared.
    I think she was in love at first and loved being a mother. Opposite of so many of Royalty, she was a hands on mother, says a lot that she went against the Queen on that.

    • Thanks Glenn, I think that’s the way most folks feel, and you’ve expressed it perfectly. When I pass this to my friends, their comments are much like yours, see if your friends aren’t bout the same.

  6. I have no doubt the queen had this done. what we have learned about her since-awful. I don’t think Kevin Annette is off at all. Itccs. Com think this is correct, typing from my phone! Bad grammar.

  7. We seem to have several biblical scholars here, which excludes me from participating in that part of the conversation.
    I am, however a ‘closet Anglophile’ of sorts. My genealogical research has taken me Across the Pond to England (1600s) and then to Ireland and Scotland (ending in the years prior to 995). But, I have never quite understood the American fascination with the British Royal Family (The Windsors/aka/Hapsburg-Gotha). They are not particularly attractive, or bright, nor have they contributed all that much to modern society (yes, I know that George VI and Elizabeth ‘The Mum’ stayed in London during WWII and provided the British population with a boost to their morale. But, those were the British people….. not the Americans).
    From all accounts that I’ve seen, Diana Spencer was a not so bright schoolgirl prior to the Royal Wedding. I believe she worked in the British equivilant of a day care or preschool.
    Not to say that she didn’t have her heart in the right place. Her ‘pet cause’ was death and injury caused by land mines, I believe. She obviously cared for children, without regard to race or nationality. I would have to say that she was a good person who had the misfortune to marry that horse faced toe sucker (if I’m not mistaken, Prince Philip, Charles’ father, is of Greek heritage, in case that might provide some ammunition to the anti Greek mindset). Probably some unseen family influence there. I’m sure her family was very happy having their daughter become the Princess of Wales.
    Did the Windsors have her done away with? Quite possibly. There certainly was no love lost there. They didn’t care for Sarah Ferguson, either. ‘Free spirits’ just don’t fit into their plans very well.
    She didn’t deserve to die. Not the way it happened. Too many unanswered questions. I don’t think the democrats could have done a much better job covering it up.
    The Brits have the Merry Family Windsor, and we have the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, etc. I have no use for any of them. Gotta be a loose gene or two in all of them.

    • The answer to “But, I have never quite understood the American fascination with the British Royal Family (The Windsors/aka/Hapsburg-Gotha)” is they are our ancestors. You stated that you had traced your ancestary back through Ireland, Scotland and just before 995. America was settled by those leaving Britain to search for religious freedom. When some of the Israelites of old moved out of Central Asia they went up and over the Caucasus mountains moving into Germany, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Italy, British Isles, etc. Other Israelite decendants went Southward. The Bible talks about a big horn and a little horn. Most Biblical scholars believe that the British Isles is the big horn and that America is the little horn. Thus why we are so fascinated with the Royal family and Britain in general. They are, or maybe I should say were, our heritage.

  8. The Prince and the Pedophile: Charles’ connections to pedophilia networks
    Fresh on the heels of the fallout from revelations regarding former BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile and his unbelievably sickening and innumerable instances of child molestation as well as the “look the other way” approach taken by the BBC, more and more questions are now emerging in regards to the connection between Savile and British Royalty, most notably Prince Charles.
    At least, more questions should be emerging.
    Unfortunately, however, the British mainstream media is deeming Prince Charles and the rest of his ilk in positions of power and perceived genetic royalty as if they are beyond reproach. This approach is typical and to be expected, yet it is also highly ironic considering the fact that such is the same position the mainstream media took with the allegations against Jimmy Savile for so many years.
    As a result of the Savile affair, mainstream outlets, particularly the BBC, now have a lot of egg on their faces in the areas of credibility and respect.In short, any connections placing Prince Charles in an uncompromising position regarding his connections with Savile or his potential for sharing a penchant for unnatural relationships with children is being completely ignored if not officially covered up.
    Although Prince Charles’ friendship with Jimmy Savile, allegedly begun when the two met in the 1970s during the course of working with children’s wheelchair sports charities, is now well-known, the extent to which the Prince and the Pedophile were connected appears to go much deeper than the mainstream media reports let on.
    Of course, the two having come in contact at a “charity” event for the disabled is not too far-fetched, even if it is being reported by corporate outlets. After all, using children’s “charities” as a hunting ground and a cover for his true motives was a notorious method used by Savile who actually lived in children’s homes and hospitals so as to be closer to his victims. This method is by no means specific to Savile, however, as many other sexual predators and pedophiles know exactly what areas of society to be involved in and what careers to pursue in order to gain access to their victims. Jerry Sandusky stands as a perfect example.
    Clarence House, Prince Charles’ spokesman, declined comment on much of the relationship between Savile and Charles, only claiming that the relationship was mostly a result of their “shared interest in supporting disability charities.”
    Supporting charities, indeed.
    Of course, Savile was doing much more than “supporting disability charities.” That is, unless one places serial child rape in a much different category than the average person might. Indeed, one would not be judged out of place to question whether or not untold numbers of sexually assaulted children thoroughly cancels out any financial “support” that may have been given in the past. Apparently, in the view of British royalty, it does not.In fact, child molester Savile has enjoyed an unbelievable level of access to the Royal Family for the past 40 years.
    For instance, in the late 1980s, Savile was said to have acted as a type of marriage counselor between Charles and Diana, visiting their residence several times. At these visits, Dickie Arbiter, who took care of media relations for the Prince and Princess between 1988 and 2000 stated that, at these visits, Savile’s behavior was uncouth to say the very least.
    Arbiter stated,
    He would walk into the office and do the rounds of the young ladies taking their hands and rubbing his lips all the way up their arms if they were wearing short sleeves. If it was summer [and their arms were bare] his bottom lip would curl out and he would run it up their arms. This was at St James’s Palace. The women were in their mid to late 20s doing typing and secretarial work.
    Not only that, but Savile was brought in to the private marital affairs of the Royals once again in order to help the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, in matters which were not disclosed to the public. Savile later claimed he was brought in to help “Fergie” keep her profile down.
    Obviously, the relationship forged between Charles and Savile went far beyond two men who merely performed charity work for the same organizations. This can be evidenced by the fact that, in 1990, Charles even consulted Savile for advice on the appointment of a senior aide for himself and Princess Diana.
    The relationship between Charles and Savile, particularly Savile’s access to the Royal Family’s affairs and the respect which was afforded Savile in this regard, has confused many onlookers. After all, Savile was nothing more than a BBC presenter and disc jockey who was well past his prime. Not to mention the fact that Savile was well known as an uncontrollable freak, although many were under the impression that Savile’s television persona was merely part of his schtick.
    Yet the clues to the Prince’s friendship with the Pedophile might have more to do with similar interests in entertainment than a mere happenstance relationship. Although the evidence which connects Prince Charles to pedophilia is nowhere near as documented as that of Jimmy Savile, a trail of information certainly seems to be leading in that direction.
    At this point, it should be mentioned that, although the official line is that Savile and Charles met in the 1970s as part of the coincidence of mutual charity work, Savile himself has stated that he was friends with the Royal family “for a million years.” In fact, it was reported that Savile actually stated he was introduced to the Royals in 1966 by Lord Mountbatten, a known pedophile and sexual pervert. In addition to Mountbatten, however, Greg Hallett, in his book Hitler Was A British Agent, also names Prince Philip as a pedophile. In reference to how he became introduced and ingratiated with the Royal family, Savile stated,
    Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him.
    So, already, we have Savile, a notorious pedophile linked to other individuals of the Royal Family named as pedophiles as well. Prince Philip, of course, is Prince Charles’ father. Lord Mountbatten is largely considered Charles’ mentor.
    Savile was indeed close to British Royals as well as other elites for many years. It seems his qualification for such high connections were mainly due to his ability to obtain children for the twisted appetites of those considered beyond reproach for the mainstream media and, unfortunately, the general public.
    Savile himself seemed to hint at this possibility in an interview conducted with Esquire where he stated, “The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover.”
    Savile’s ridiculous television show (created for the sole purpose of enhancing his access to children) was thus appropriately named, Jimmy’ll Fix It. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public were completely unaware as to what he was fixing and who he was fixing it for.
    Essentially, it is clear that Jimmy Savile was a procurer of children not only for himself but also for wealthy pedophiles all across the world, particularly in Britain. Even Savile’s own nephew has recently gone public with information tying Savile to a network of pedophiles and sick sexual parties where children were repeatedly raped. Guy Marsden, Savile’s nephew, also stated that the parties were attended by household names in show business.
    However, as is being widely reported in the news, Savile’s escapades of pedophilia were by no means limited to parties with the elite of entertainment. Many of his attacks on children took place in the halls of the hospitals and charities he helped fund and operate, even residing in his own personal room at two of these institutions. At this point, it is worth noting that Savile and Prince Charles are open “supporters” of the same charities.
    Apparently, Prince Charles and the Pedophile did have some similar tastes, some of which were even reported by the mainstream media. In 1999, after the Prince accepted Savile’s invitation to a private meal at Savile’s home in Glencoe, Scotland, Savile had arranged for three women to parade around dressed in pinafores, a type of dress without sleeves and an open back that is often worn over other dresses. Interestingly enough, pinafores were often worn by children.
    After the dinner, Charles wrote Savile a Christmas Card with a note that read, “Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland.”
    Of course, the mainstream is certain that Charles is referring to the local women brought in for the Royal entertainment. However, unless the hired help made an exceptional impression upon the mind of Charles, one must wonder whether or not these particular ladies are the “ladies” to which Charles is referring in his Christmas note. After all, Savile’s Scottish cottage was also the scene of much child abuse as well.
    Later, Charles sent Savile a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday along with another note that cryptically read, “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.” Fortunately, many are now aware of what Jimmy has done for his country. Clearly, it would be best if they are given the full story along with it.
    This is not likely to happen, however, as global pedophile rings are generally made up of some of the most elite individuals the world over. This is particularly relevant when it comes to any questions regarding the behavior of the Royal Prince. At any moment when there is a chance that information might be leaked that would be damaging to the reputation of genetic royalty, the documents are sealed, the whistleblowers are dealt with, and the controversy covered up.
    Some have even speculated that Princess Diana sealed her own fate after threatening to reveal networks of pedophilia within the Royal family. Indeed, Diana did speak of “dark forces” and members of an “organization” that were monitoring her shortly before her death.
    For instance, when it appeared that the so-called Black Spider Memos, a series of letters written by Charles to government ministers, would damage the perception of Charles’ impartiality if he were to become king, then memos were immediately blocked by the British government. Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see the contents of the letters, since, in reality, the impartiality of the king is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of British society and government.
    What is particularly interesting is that the letters are being blocked from release now, as the biggest pedophilia scandal in British history is unfolding – specifically, at a time when one of the main focal points of the scandal, Jimmy Savile, was a close friend of the Prince. Even more so, it comes at a time when British government officials are also being implicated in pedophilia networks.
    For those who may still be under the impression that pedophilia is a crime beyond the capabilities of British politicians, take a look at this partial compilation of British politicians convicted of pedophilia in recent years.
    But, while the connections between Prince Charles and the Pedophile Jimmy Savile are themselves enough to make one wonder, the fact is that Savile is not the only relationship with a potential pedophile that Charles has maintained.
    As reported by the Digital Journal, the Right Reverend Peter Ball, who is thought to be “the most senior member of the Church of England,” was recently been arrested in connection to a child sexual abuse case. Ball was arrested on eight suspected cases of abuse against boys and young men ranging from ages 12 to 20 during the 1980s to 1990s. Ball, who was the former Bishop of Gloucester, resigned in 1993 after he was served with a police caution for “committing an act of gross indecency against a teenager.”
    Upon his resignation, Ball retired to Manor Lodge, “a wisteria-clad property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall.” Manor Lodge is the private estate of Prince Charles.
    In reference to his new living arrangements, Ball stated, “He (Prince Charles) has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house. The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person.”
    Considering the connections and personal friendships maintained by Prince Charles, one must question whether or not Charles himself has had some experience in the underworld of pedophilia. At the very least, the Prince is the absolute worst judge of character who ever lived.
    What is also very interesting regarding the people named in these child sex scandals and the scope of the scandals themselves, is that the individuals who have been trying their best to bring this information to light have been ignored and derided for years on end. This has been the case whether the individuals were whistleblowers, researchers, or even victims themselves.
    For instance, while much of mainstream Britain has had quite a time laughing at David Icke, suddenly his claims do not seem so fantastic and funny after all. Indeed, it was Icke who mentioned the global cabal of pedophiles and even many of the participants in them by name many years ago. While his voice was scarcely heard above the laughter at the time, he is, at the very least, on the record as having exposed these networks early on.
    As for Icke’s remarks regarding the scandal today, he had this to say on November 7, 2012.
    This guy, William Hague, the foreign Secretary, needs to be questioned on why that Welsh inquiry into the massive pedophilia in Welsh children’s homes was given the brief that it did and therefore stopped these kids from talking about what happened to them. And this is the big thing. If the police investigation does not knock on the door of Buckingham Palace over this whole Savile [case] and the wider implications that have followed then it’s a cover up. Because the British Royal family are fundamentally involved in this right to the top. Right up to the people like Prince Philip and all these other people . . . . . This man [Savile] was an aging sleazy disc jockey, right? And he had complete access to the British Royal family AND they used him as an official go-between [with] Prince Charles and Princess Diana when they were falling out in their marriage. And now it’s come out this week that he was advising Prince Charles on aids to employ. Why is this man so close or was so close to the British Royal Family? The answer to that will bring the British Royal family down.
    Considering Icke’s accuracy in terms of information on this particular issue, perhaps it would be wise if those who heard him speak years ago might take him a little more serious the second time around.

  9. Prince Andrew sex allegations: Virginia Roberts had rape claim rejected at 14 ‘over credibility’
    Lawyers for the alleged “sex slave” at the centre of allegations against the Duke of York have said she “will not be silenced” by reports that she had a rape claim rejected at the age of 14.
    Virginia Roberts, who has waived anonymity in her bid to support prosecution against the billionaire financier and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, claims she was made to have sex with Prince Andrew three times when she was aged 17.
    The age of consent in Florida, where two other unnamed women are petitioning for Epstein’s prosecution, in 18. Buckingham Palace, Epstein and the financier’s other named friends have repeatedly denied the claims.
    It has now emerged that, according to court papers obtained by the New York Daily News, Ms Roberts claimed to have been raped by two male acquaintances in 1998.
    Then 14, Ms Roberts said she was drinking and smoking cannabis with two boys aged 17 and 18 in a car near West Palm Beach in Florida when she passed out, waking up to find them taking turns to have sex with her in an ordeal “lasting around five to seven hours”.
    The alleged incident, months before Ms Roberts entered into employment with Epstein, was investigated by police after it was reported by her mother. But prosecutors eventually decided not to pursue the case “due to the victim’s lack of credibility and no substantial likelihood of success at trial”, the Daily News reported.
    Sigrid McCawley, one of Roberts’ current lawyers, said that “blaming a girl, who by age 14 had been sexually abused, and who finally went to the police for help, is both wrong and hurtful”.
    “For the prosecutors to describe her as not credible means only that they did not think they had sufficient evidence to win,” McCawley said. “But she was raped, and to be victimised all over again with the leak of sealed juvenile records is disgraceful.”
    Earlier this month, Ms Roberts issued a sworn statement in the US courts in which she said she feared “some kind of major cover-up is going on to protect” Epstein.
    “Based on my knowledge of Epstein and his organization, as well as discussions with the FBI, it is my belief that federal prosecutors likely possess videotapes and photographic images of me as an underage girl having sex with Epstein and some of his powerful friends,” she said.
    The financier was convicted in 2008 of one count of soliciting sex from an underage girl and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
    Mr Epstein only served 13 months in jail before before being released and forced to register as a sex offender. It has been alleged that Mr Epstein received special treatment from US prosecutor after lobbying from Prince Andrew, something Buckingham Palace has also denied.

  10. Prince philip:is this the sickest man in the u.k @

  11. Hear, hear Jim to all you have stated. High time people take the rose colored glasses off when it comes to those ruling the world. And indeed anyone who thinks that the Queen is just a figurehead is painfully naïve. She is one of the richest women on the face of the planet with controlling interests in British petroleum and more.
    As for Diana and why she was murdered, it may be for multiple reasons, just like President Kennedy was murdered for multiple reasons. Henry Kissinger was quoted as having said that she ( Diana ) was a loose cannon, meaning she was working counter to the agenda of the elites, which of course included the Queen. As a person of great fame and adoration people listened to the Princess. She was working tirelessly to bring to the attention of the world the issue of land mines and all the children who had been killed and maimed by them. Her goal was to get them outlawed. Now anyone who knows how things work, knows that the uber wealthy of the world get a lotta their bucks through banking and weapons. They surely were not going to sit idly by and have a do gooder bring actual peace and betterment to the world that they keep in constant turmoil with their wars and planned chaos. In addition, if Icke is correct, then Diana was possibly pregnant with Dodi’s child and THAT would not do for the future king to have a half Arab brother. There are just too many instances of the rabid rascism of the Royals to deny. Add to that, the Royals are said by former M16 agent and researcher John Coleman to be Jewish, not British as explained here:
    “The most powerful of the Black Nobility families are located in Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Britain, Holland and Greece in that order. Their roots may be traced back to the Venetian oligarchs, who are of Khazar extraction, and married into these royal houses in the early part of the twelfth century. (Following a great Khazar victory over the Arabs, the future Emperor, Constantine V, married a Khazar princess and their son became Emperor Leo IV, also known as “Leo the Khazar”. The Medecci popes, and Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli) were Khazars, as is the present Pope, John Paul II. Not all Black Nobility are royal houses, and many of the royal families no longer have kingdoms. According to researcher and author Dr. John Coleman, a “Committee of 300” was established early in the eighteenth century, “although it did not take on its present form until around 1897”, (when the China opium trade was legalised) Theodore Herzl organized this Jewish super-organization at the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland. Its purpose was to manage the political power of Rothschild’s huge kingdom which was rapidly absorbing the wealth of the Gentiles and to realize the Talmudic perversion that the “Jews” were the “chosen people” and that God had promised them that they should rule the world (Rothschild Money Trust, George Armstrong, pp.24-25). It includes the Queen of Holland, the Queen of Denmark and all the royal families of Europe, or Black Nobility. It’s head today is Queen Elizabeth”

  12. Lana, did you happen to know that Dr. John Coleman (Committee of 300) is a believer in the Christian Identity Cult? If you don’t know what that is, please check it out on web. If I were you, I’d do more research on your Jewish beliefs, because much of what you’re saying in the last paragraph comes from anti-Semitic tomes.

  13. Thanks Kelleigh, I knew about some people believing that about the 12 tribes are really European though I didn’t know that an actual name was given to those groups. As far I can see, the above information by Coleman is not anti-Semitic. That word BTW, has been created to create a Pavlovian response of fear and revulsion so as to shut down any genuine discussion of actual facts. Saying that there are certain traceable lineages is either a provable fact or not, it has nothing to do with how one feels about anyone. You must be aware that at least two Jews themselves, Arthur Koestler, and Shlomo Sand have called into question the Semitic origins of the Ashkenazi Jews who populate modern Israel ? They claim that modern Israelis are only converts to Judaism in the 8th century and originate from the Caucus mountains. Does that make them anti- Semitic or does it make the Jews who claim to be Semites a fraud ?
    Did you know that the framework for the European Union provides for the extinction of the European races ? Did you also know that the ruling class will be Jewish ? Did you know that all the mass immigration, both in the EU and in every other White country, which I think most here would repudiate, is solely orchestrated by Jews and their Freemasonic minions ? Does the planned Genocide of the White race by Jews make ME anti- Semitic or does that make them anti- White ?
    Please be sure see the links within the article below where Jews support the ethnic purity of Israel while pushing mass third world immigration to all white countries.

  14. Lana, I have clicked on some of your links above, and they really are anti-Semitic and Jew hating site. There are only 14 million Jewish people in the whole world, and they’d love to have the power so many believe they have. I wish you’d study God’s Word rather than these horrible websites.
    And Yes, Coleman is Christian Identity. I was the executive producer for radio hosts for many years, I’ve talked to Coleman and my one host even talked to him and told him he’d get a lot more coverage if he’d get out of that cult.
    And the entire Caucus mountains business also came out of the CI cult, along with Armstrongians. Please be aware that hatred of the Jews comes from satan himself (purposely not capitalized). He wants them all dead so that remnant of Jews at the end of the tribulation cannot repent as a nation of their denial of Messiah Jesus and beg him to return to save them from Satan’s armies. Would have to go get my Bible, but Zechariah has a lot on this. If there are no Jews, satan can rule forever. Bottom line, God said in Gen. 12:1-3, I will bless those who bless her, and curse those who curse her.” All the world has been blessed because Jesus was a Jew and came from the tribe of Judah. This verse is part of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, and no matter what, God keeps his promise.
    Please do more reading of scripture and less of the websites who use Jews as their scapegoats over and over again. How about Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Nicolae Ceaușescu,and countless other leaders who have all been gentiles and were mass murderers of their own people. Do you remember Pastor Richard Wurmbrand who was a Jewish man who became a believer and was a Lutheran preacher? He was tortured for his faith in Christ for 13 years and testified in the Senate.
    The Jews are not our problem, and like any group of people there are good ones and bad ones…and no, I don’t like Feinstein or Schumer anymore than any other true Constitutional conservative, but I do believe God’s Word and He has spelled it out quite clearly.

  15. Wow, Yea what she said. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *